From: Chao Leng <lengchao@huawei.com>
To: Max Gurtovoy <mgurtovoy@nvidia.com>,
Sagi Grimberg <sagi@grimberg.me>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
Cc: <linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org>, <kbusch@kernel.org>,
"linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org" <linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] nvme-rdma: set ack timeout of RoCE to 262ms
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2022 10:24:32 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <47eb747d-0b48-acc5-a833-02457817e71b@huawei.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <405b78aa-51b8-30b4-ff86-c46d1bc84cda@huawei.com>
Hi, Max
How's it going now?
Thank you.
On 2022/10/14 10:15, Chao Leng wrote:
>
>
> On 2022/10/14 8:05, Max Gurtovoy wrote:
>> Sorry for late response, we have holiday's in my country.
>>
>> I still can't understand how this patch fixes your problem if you use ConnectX-5 since we use adaptive re-transmission by default and it's faster than 256msec to re-transmit.
> adaptive re-transmission? Do you mean NAK-triggered retransmission?
> NAK-triggered retransmission is very fast, but timeout-triggered retransmission
> is very slow. Because There is a possibility that all packets of a QP are lost,
> receiver HBA can not send NAK.
> From our analysis, we didn't see any other adaptive re-transmission.
> If there is any other adaptive re-transmission, can you explain it?
>
> This patch modify the waiting time for timeout re-transmission, Thus if all packets
> of a QP are lost, the re-transmission waiting time will become short.
>>
>> Did you disable it ?
> We do not disable anything.
>>
>> I'll try to re-spin it internally again.
> If you need more information, please feel free to contact me.
> Thank you.
>>
>> On 10/10/2022 12:12 PM, Chao Leng wrote:
>>> Hi, Max
>>> Can you give some comment? Thank you.
>>>
>>> On 2022/8/29 21:15, Chao Leng wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 2022/8/29 17:06, Sagi Grimberg wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If so, which devices did you use ?
>>>>>>>> The host HBA is Mellanox Technologies MT27800 Family [ConnectX-5];
>>>>>>>> The switch and storage are huawei equipments.
>>>>>>>> In principle, switches and storage devices from other vendors
>>>>>>>> have the same problem.
>>>>>>>> If you think it is necessary, we can test the other vendor switchs
>>>>>>>> and linux target.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why is the 2s default chosen, what is the downside for a 250ms seconds ack timeout? and why is nvme-rdma different than all other kernel rdma
>>>>>> The downside is redundant retransmit if the packets delay more than
>>>>>> 250ms in the networks and finally reaches the receiver.
>>>>>> Only in extreme scenarios, the packet delay may exceed 250 ms.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sounds like the default needs to be changed if it only addresses the
>>>>> extreme scenarios...
>>>>>
>>>>>>> consumers that it needs to set this explicitly?
>>>>>> The real-time transaction services are sensitive to the delay.
>>>>>> nvme-rdma will be used in real-time transactions.
>>>>>> The real-time transaction services do not allow that the packets
>>>>>> delay more than 250ms in the networks.
>>>>>> So we need to set the ack timeout to 262ms.
>>>>>
>>>>> While I don't disagree with the change itself, I do disagree why this
>>>>> needs to be driven by nvme-rdma locally. If all kernel rdma consumers
>>>>> need this (and if not, I'd like to understand why), this needs to be set in the rdma core.Changing the default set in the rdma core is another option.
>>>> But it will affect all application based on RDMA.
>>>> Max, what do you think? Thank you.
>>>>> .
>>>>
>>>> .
>> .
prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-11-16 2:24 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-08-19 7:58 [PATCH] nvme-rdma: set ack timeout of RoCE to 262ms Chao Leng
2022-08-21 6:20 ` Christoph Hellwig
2022-08-22 9:50 ` Chao Leng
2022-08-22 15:30 ` Max Gurtovoy
2022-08-25 9:58 ` Chao Leng
2022-08-28 14:57 ` Sagi Grimberg
2022-08-29 8:05 ` Chao Leng
2022-08-29 9:06 ` Sagi Grimberg
2022-08-29 13:15 ` Chao Leng
2022-10-10 9:12 ` Chao Leng
2022-10-14 0:05 ` Max Gurtovoy
2022-10-14 2:15 ` Chao Leng
2022-11-16 2:24 ` Chao Leng [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=47eb747d-0b48-acc5-a833-02457817e71b@huawei.com \
--to=lengchao@huawei.com \
--cc=hch@lst.de \
--cc=kbusch@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mgurtovoy@nvidia.com \
--cc=sagi@grimberg.me \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox